Strategy. Innovation. Brand.
Daydreaming, Default Networks, and Creativity
Is your mind ever really at rest? Does it ever switch completely off? Apparently not. Something is always going on. You may be focused or unfocused, thinking or dreaming, but something is always happening.
When we’re engaged in an attention-absorbing activity (AAA) – and especially a pleasurable AAA – the task-positive network kicks in. It helps us stay focused, pay attention, and accomplish specific tasks. It generally keeps us conscious of what we’re doing.
When we’re not engaged in an AAA, the default network kicks in, allowing our mind to wander. We can daydream, think about the future, “correct” mistakes we made in the past, and generally “zone out”. It’s what happens when your mind wanders away while reading or driving. It’s “negatively correlated” with parts of the brain that process visual stimuli, which may very well be related to inattentional blindness.
On average, some 30% of our waking time is devoted to daydreaming. The default network switches on and the task-positive network switches off. (They can’t both be on at the same time). Often, we are not aware that we are daydreaming, unless someone asks, a penny for your thoughts. Then we realize that we were somewhere else. Researchers on daydreaming essentially offer a penny for your thoughts at random intervals.
Why would we spend so much time daydreaming? It’s not completely clear. But people who have suffered long-term stress (like PTSD or child abuse) or who have some forms of autism seem to have difficulty activating their default network and daydreaming. As Josie Glausiusz writes in Scientific American, “The default network appears to be essential to generating our sense of self, suggesting that daydreaming plays a crucial role in who we are and how we integrate the outside word into our inner lives.”
Daydreaming may also be related to creativity. Researchers at UC Santa Barbara used the Unusual Uses Task (UUT) to measure creativity under different conditions. (The UUT present you with a common object – like a brick – and asks you to come up with as many unusual uses as possible). The researchers found that “higher levels of mind wandering” were associated with improved performance on the UUT. On the other hand, thinking specifically about the UUT did not improve performance.
To promote creativity through daydreaming, however, it appears that we need to be conscious of our daydreaming. That’s not as easy as it sounds. When I’m daydreaming, I am indeed zoned out and the bright ideas I get while in that zone may never pop into my consciousness. The trick seems to be to ask the penny for your thoughts question of yourself. As you return from your daydream, think about what you were thinking about and capture it consciously. You may find a good solution to a problem … or a good topic for your blog.
Inventing Tradition
That shirt is illegal!
When I was a Boy Scout – many years ago – I learned the proper way to handle and display the American flag. The basic idea was simple: the flag is a symbol and an inspiration.
This simple idea led to numerous rules:
- You should raise the flag at dawn and lower it at sunset. Never fly the flag after dark. How could it be inspirational if you can’t see it?
- There’s a very specific way to fold the flag. Don’t lower the flag unless someone is present who knows how to fold it. When folding, don’t allow the flag to touch the ground lest it get dirty.
- Never disrespect the flag. Among other things, don’t make clothes or jewelry out of the flag. That would convert a symbol into mere merchandise.
In fact, we still have a Flag Code which says, among other things, that, “The flag should never be used as wearing apparel, bedding, or drapery.” In 1968, Abbie Hoffman (pictured), an antiwar protester, was arrested for wearing a shirt made from an American flag. Such behavior was not only disrespectful; it was also illegal.
Today, of course, we have new “traditions” regarding the flag. Everyone seems to want to show it at all times. We make jewelry and clothing from it. We fly it day and night. While on the campaign trail in 2008, Barack Obama was criticized for not wearing an American flag pin on his lapel. From Abbie Hoffman to Barack Obama, we essentially reversed our “traditional” view of how to treat the flag respectfully.
We invent new traditions all the time. While many traditions seem to be “the way we’ve always done it”, many are quite recent. As Eric Hobsbawm and Terence Ranger point out in The Invention of Tradition, we tend to invent new traditions, “…more frequently when a rapid transformation of society weakens or destroys the social patterns for which ‘old’ traditions had been designed….”
Hobsbawm and Ranger write that we invent some new traditions by “grafting on old ones” and others by reaching back into “well-supplied warehouses of official ritual [and] symbolism…” and giving new meaning to old symbols. Apparently, this is what happened to the Scottish kilt, tartans, and bagpipe.: “This apparatus, to which we ascribe great antiquity, is in fact largely modern. … Indeed, the whole concept of a distinct Highland culture and tradition is a retrospective invention.”
Why do we invent new traditions when we already have perfectly good ones? We may want to preserve an older, supposedly “purer” set of beliefs and loyalties. Or we may want to draw together in the face of a common opponent. (The Highlands “tradition” was invented in opposition to England). We may want to divide people between true believers and those who may be untrustworthy. Sometimes, we simply want to slow down the pace of change.
We need to remember to question our traditions. If we simply accept them as they are, then we lose perspective and see an invented history rather than an accurate one. We see only what we’re intended to see. This applies to organizations as much as to cultures and societies. The next time you hear, we’ve always done it this way, just say, “Is that really true? Let’s find out.”
Seeing Without Seeing
I never saw him!
A few days ago, Suellen put some freshly laundered sheets at the base of the stairs. Whoever went upstairs next should take the sheets and put them away in the linen closet. Don’t climb the stairs just to take the sheets up, but the next person to go upstairs should take the sheets with them. Simple, no?
I was the next one to go upstairs. But I wasn’t thinking about sheets. Rather, I was thinking about getting the checkbook from the office (also upstairs) and going to the bank to move some money from savings to checking so I could pay bills on the first of the month. Sheets were unexpected.
Thinking about monthly bills, checkbooks, accounts, etc. fully occupied my attention. I completely missed the sheets. I’m sure that I looked right at them. In fact, I probably had to step over them. But, did I see them? Well… yes and no. My eyes saw them but my brain didn’t. In the lingo of brain scientists, I was inattentionally blind.
It happens all the time. We’re thinking about one thing while doing another. We pay attention to what we’re thinking about. We may “see” something in our visual field – we may look right at it – and not register it. In effect, we’re blind because our attention is elsewhere and we didn’t expect to see sheets (or unicorns or anything out of the ordinary).
I’m sure that this is how a lot of accidents happen. I’ve heard people say, “I never saw him” or “It came out of nowhere.” In general, our brain can function quite well on autopilot. It’s how we drive 30 miles without remembering any of it. Driving is simple enough that the autopilot portion takes over and leaves our attention free to wander. It’s just fine. Until it’s not.
So here’s a tip: set a little “attentional” alarm in your brain. When the alarm goes off, ask yourself, “What am I paying attention to?” and “What am I missing?” Then look around to see what’s really going on in your visual field. You’ll be surprised.
As I came back down the stairs with the checkbook in hand, I noticed the sheets. I realized immediately what had happened. I had been inattentionally blind. I also knew that Suellen might be suspicious of this excuse. Bottom line: I picked up the sheets, took them back upstairs, and put them away. Problem solved.
Culture – Virtue and Truth
Does virtue come from truth? Or does truth come from virtue? It’s an ancient question and one that helps define the differences between cultures.
According to the father-son team of Gert Hofstede and Geert Jan Hofstede, these questions help determine whether a culture is long-term or short-term oriented (LTO or STO). LTO cultures foster “… virtues oriented toward future rewards — in particular, perseverance and thrift.” STO cultures, on the other hand, foster, “…virtues related to the past and present — in particular, respect for tradition, preservation of ‘face’, and fulfilling social obligations.”
Cultures that rank high on the LTO index tend to be eastern. Countries with the highest LTO indexes are: China (LTOI = 118), Hong Kong (96), Taiwan (87), Japan (80), Viet Nam (80), and South Korea (75). Cultures that rank lower tend to have a European heritage: Sweden (33), Germany (31), New Zealand (30), United States (29), Great Britain (25), Canada (23), and Spain (19).
According to the Hofstedes, a short –term culture emphasizes quick results, spending (as opposed to saving), respect for traditions, and concern with preserving social status and ‘face’. Longer-term cultures emphasize sustained efforts, thriftiness, respect for current circumstances (as opposed to tradition), and concern with personal adaptiveness (as opposed to status).
How does all this play out? Students in LTO cultures tend to link success to effort. In STO cultures, students may attribute success to many factors, including luck, social status, appearance, or “who you know”.
The differences crop up in myriad other ways as well. Marriage is a moral arrangement in an STO culture but more of a pragmatic solution in an LTO culture. Gifts for children tend to be playful in STO cultures but educational in LTO cultures. Old age is viewed as an unhappy period in STO cultures but the opposite in LTO cultures.
The extended family is typically more important in LTO cultures. In long-term societies, you’re born into a family and tradition and you adapt to situations that were created long before you arrived. Society imposes itself on you. Short-term cultures, on the other hand, tend to value the “self-made man” who can impose himself on society.
These differences affect organizations in various ways. STO businesses tend to focus on the bottom line and this year’s profits. LTO businesses focus more on market position and profits over the coming decade. Managers and workers are in two different camps in STO cultures; they share similar aspirations in LTO cultures.
But what about virtue and truth? The differences tend to follow an East/West (or, more generally an LTO/STO) divide.
Western religions (Judaism, Christianity, Islam) all have a Book disseminating a truth that individuals can apprehend. What you believe is important. Virtue comes from truth.
Eastern religions (Hinduism, Buddhism, Taosim) are not based on a Book containing eternal truth. Rather, they focus on living virtuously, which may include meditation, ritual, and self-abnegation. What you do is important. Living virtuously can lead you to spiritual awareness. Truth comes from virtue.
Where virtue comes from truth, enlightenment can happen instantaneously. Think of Saul on the road to Damascus. Where truth comes from virtue, enlightenment may take considerably longer.
Critical Thinking Standards
It’s clear but is it accurate?
I teach a course in critical thinking and friends sometimes ask, “Well, what does that mean?” Essentially, it’s a process of thinking about thinking in a structured, systematic way. The goal is to think more clearly and fairmindedly.
It’s also about epistemology: how do we know what we know? More specifically, how do we know that what we know is true?
It’s generally agreed, for instance, that there are eight “intellectual standards” that can help us think more clearly. Each is important in its own right but the order is also important. Here they are:
Clarity – this is the most basic standard; it’s a gateway to other standards. If a statement is not clear, we can’t reason effectively. The question, “What can be done about the crisis in the family?” is unclear. Useful clarifying questions include, Can you give me an example?, How do you define the problem?
Accuracy – a statement can be clear but not accurate: “Travis is a genius.” Advertisers and politicians frequently make statements that are clear but not accurate. At the same time, our own thoughts may not be accurate. So, we need external reference points that can help us validate accuracy. For instance, a friend publishes the website Thinking Arizona, which provides “facts to inform the public discourse”. That seems like a growth market.
Precision – a statement can be clear and accurate but not precise: “Travis is overweight.” Well, how much overweight? Is this a small problem or a big problem? Key question: can you be more specific?
Relevance — a statement can be clear, accurate, and precise but not relevant. I once explained to my boss just how hard I was working on a particular project. Her response was, “So what?” It really wasn’t relevant.
Depth – a statement can be clear, accurate, precise and relevant but shallow. Here’s one: “If we just eliminated sex ed in high schools, teens wouldn’t get pregnant.” Well, maybe … but somehow teen pregnancy seems to be a much deeper, more complicated issue. Key question: Is that really the most significant factor?
Breadth — a statement can be clear, accurate, precise, relevant and deep but too narrow. Politicians do this regularly, presenting only the conservative or only the liberal point of view. At the same time, we may be narrow in our own thinking. So we may need to broaden our own thinking as well as “their” thinking. Key questions: What about the other side? What if we flip the question around?
Logic – a statement may be all of the above but not logical – it just doesn’t make sense. The coin toss experiment that proves that criticism is more effective than praise is a good example. Key questions: How does that conclusion flow from the evidence? Are other factors involved?
Significance – a statement may be all of the above but not significant. This is a little different than relevance. You may find that multiple factors are relevant but only one or two are significant. For instance, lung cancer may have multiple causes (all of which are relevant) but smoking is probably the cause that is most significant.
All of this may seem like “structured common sense” and in a way it is. But it’s useful to review these standards occasionally to remember how they fit together. I also like to review the questions from time to time so they’re on the tip of my tongue when I get into an argument.
Note: Most books on critical thinking would present some variation of this material. I adapted this version from Critical Thinking, 3rd edition, by Richard Paul and Linda Elder.
My Social Media
